A new report from MSCI shows that many listed companies are still not aligned with the world’s most ambitious climate goal. The findings suggest that progress is uneven. Some companies are moving in the right direction. Many are not yet cutting emissions fast enough.
According to MSCI’s latest Transition Finance Tracker, about 38% of companies in the MSCI All Country World Investable Market Index (ACWI IMI) have emissions trajectories that are aligned with limiting global warming to 2°C or below. This includes 12% aligned with 1.5°C or less and 26% aligned between 1.5°C and 2°C.
However, only about 12% of companies are aligned with the stricter 1.5°C goal set under the Paris Agreement. The remaining companies are on pathways that imply warming above 2°C.
In fact, 36% of companies fall in the range above 2°C but below 3.2°C, while 26% exceed 3.2°C. Overall, the median listed company trajectory implies 3°C (5.4°F) of warming above preindustrial levels this century.
MSCI uses a tool called the Implied Temperature Rise (ITR) metric. This tool estimates how much global temperatures would rise if the whole economy followed the same emissions pathway as a given company. It looks at aggregate emissions, sector-specific carbon budgets, and corporate climate targets.
Inside the ITR: Measuring Corporate Warming Impact
MSCI’s ITR metric helps investors understand climate risk. It compares a company’s projected emissions with global carbon budgets that align with temperature goals. The dataset used in this estimate covers roughly 95% of ACWI IMI constituents, as about 5% lack sufficient data for the calculation.
If a company’s emissions plan fits within a 1.5°C carbon budget, it is considered aligned with the most ambitious Paris goal. If it fits within a 2°C budget, it is considered moderately aligned. If not, it implies higher warming.
- The Paris Agreement aims to limit global warming to well below 2°C, and preferably to 1.5°C, compared with pre-industrial levels.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned that global emissions must fall by about 43% by 2030, compared with 2019 levels, to keep 1.5°C within reach.
MSCI’s data shows that most companies are not reducing emissions at that pace. The report also notes that its latest warming estimate is three-tenths of a degree higher than the previous quarter due to a methodological update that removed a cap on how much companies could exceed their carbon budgets.
This gap matters because corporate emissions play a major role in global totals. The MSCI ACWI IMI includes 8,225 companies and captures about 99% of the global equity investment opportunity set as of Dec. 31, 2025.
Winners and Laggards: How Sectors Stack Up on Climate
The Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI) gives a clear look at how corporate climate performance differs by industry.
The TPI report looked at more than 2,000 major companies. These companies have a total market value of about US$87 trillion. The focus was on their climate governance and progress on emissions. It found that 98% of companies lack credible plans to shift capital away from carbon-intensive assets.
The report warns that 554 companies in 12 high-emitting sectors are on a dangerous path. Their current emissions are on track to overshoot the 1.5°C carbon budget by 61% between 2020 and 2050. These same pathways will also likely exceed the 2°C budget by 13% during that same period.
The analysis suggests that many firms consider climate issues in daily decisions. However, few have solid long-term transition plans.
TPI also shows clear differences in sector progress. For example, automotive and electricity companies reduced emissions intensity nearly five times faster between 2020 and 2023 than cement and steel firms. Conversely, sectors such as oil & gas, aluminum, and coal mining remain among the most misaligned with Paris goals.
This highlights that while some industries are beginning to cut emissions and improve governance, most still need stronger transition plans and clearer capital alignment to meet global climate targets.
Climate Alignment Is Now a Financial Risk Indicator
Findings reveal that climate alignment is not only an environmental issue. It is also a financial one.
Governments are tightening climate policies. Carbon pricing systems now cover about 23% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the World Bank’s State and Trends of Carbon Pricing report.
More countries are setting net-zero targets. Regulations are increasing disclosure requirements. Investors face growing pressure to measure climate risk in portfolios.
The MSCI report also shows that 19% of listed companies had a climate target validated by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) as of Dec. 31, 2025, up from 14% a year earlier. Meanwhile, 32% of companies have set a companywide net-zero target, and 60% have published some form of climate commitment.
Companies that are not aligned with global climate goals may face higher regulatory costs, stranded assets, or weaker demand in the future. On the other hand, companies aligned with 1.5°C or 2°C pathways may benefit from new markets and lower transition risk.
MSCI’s data helps investors compare companies on this basis. The 38% alignment figure gives a broad snapshot of progress across global markets.
Progress, But Not Fast Enough
The fact that 38% of companies align with 2°C or below shows improvement compared with past years. Corporate climate reporting has expanded. More companies now set net-zero targets, and many publish science-based targets.
Disclosure rates have also improved. As of Dec. 31, 2024, 79% of listed companies disclosed Scope 1 and/or Scope 2 emissions, up from 76% a year earlier. A majority, 56%, reported at least some Scope 3 emissions, up from 51%.
Still, MSCI’s findings show that ambition and action are not always the same. Some companies set long-term targets but delay near-term reductions. Others rely heavily on carbon offsets instead of direct emissions cuts. In some cases, emissions intensity improves while absolute emissions remain high.
The IPCC has made clear that global emissions must fall sharply this decade. Delayed action increases future costs and transition risks.
A Fossil-Fuel-Heavy World Complicates the Shift
Global energy-related CO₂ emissions reached a record 37.8 billion tonnes in 2023, according to the International Energy Agency. While renewable energy growth has accelerated, fossil fuels still account for around 80% of global primary energy supply.
These global figures explain why corporate alignment remains challenging. Many companies operate in economies that still depend on fossil energy.
MSCI’s report reflects this broader reality. Corporate alignment depends on system-wide change, not just company-level pledges. Moreover, the report’s findings come as corporate climate pledges continue to rise sharply.
According to the SBTi, the number of companies setting both near-term and net-zero science-based targets surged 227% between late 2023 and mid-2025. Companies setting near-term targets alone grew by nearly 97% over the same period.
By the end of 2023, only 17% of companies with validated targets had both near-term and net-zero commitments. That share rose to 33% in 2024 and reached 38% by mid-2025.
The figures show that more companies are formalizing climate commitments. However, MSCI’s data indicates that only 12% of listed firms align with 1.5°C, while 38% align with 2°C or below — highlighting a gap between target-setting and full emissions alignment.
The Road Ahead: Bridging the 1.5°C Gap
The headline figure shows that more than one-third of listed firms are moving in a direction consistent with global climate goals. That gap is significant.
To meet the Paris Agreement’s goals, alignment will need to increase quickly across all sectors. This means faster emissions cuts, clearer short-term targets, and stronger capital allocation toward low-carbon technologies. Today’s alignment rate suggests progress is underway, but it also shows that most companies still have to work harder to be on track to a 1.5°C path.
The post Climate Reality Check: Only 12% of Global Companies Align With 1.5°C Goal, MSCI Reports appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Insetting program design starts with your supplier map. The carbon claim comes much later.
Consider a coffee procurement team that funds a farm intervention before checking its sourcing data. The supplier aggregates coffee lots from several regions. The buyer lacks farm-level traceability. Another purchaser expects to report the same outcome. A more attractive project brochure solves none of these problems.
If the distinction between a value-chain intervention and a purchased credit is still open, read CCC’s Insetting vs Offsetting guide before you set the brief.
Insetting program design begins with the purchasing relationship and works outward. You need to decide 1) where an intervention belongs, 2) what business problem it addresses, 3) who pays for it, 4) how results will be measured, and 5) what the evidence will let you say about them. This five-step playbook turns that sequence into a procurement plan.
Step 1: Insetting program design starts with supplier mapping
Start with the commodities that matter most to your Scope 3 inventory and sourcing continuity. Ask finance for spend by supplier, sustainability for the emissions baseline, and category managers for origin and volume records. Then identify which suppliers can trace material to a jurisdiction, sourcing region, producer group, or individual land-management unit.
The level of traceability affects what you can account for. Under the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, the spatial boundary for purchased land-based products depends on the traceability associated with each volume. Farm-specific factors or removals require physical traceability through an acceptable chain-of-custody model. A contract with a tier-one trader, by itself, does not establish a link to the farms behind its deliveries.[1]
Build a first-pass table with five columns: commodity and annual volume; supplier and origin; current traceability level; land-use and production risks; and the business owner who can change the purchasing terms. Mark missing data plainly. A blank cell is cheaper to fix before a program starts than after a claim is drafted.
If your company sets an SBTi Forest, Land and Agriculture target (FLAG), keep its land-related target boundary separate from energy and industry emissions. The current FLAG guidance also requires relevant companies to assess primary deforestation-linked commodities in their value chains.[2]
Step 2: Choose a commodity and jurisdiction for a pilot
Select one supply corridor where the sourcing connection can be established and procurement has a reason to stay. A useful pilot has repeat purchases, suppliers willing to share records, an intervention matched to a diagnosed problem, and a defined plan to measure the result. Carbon potential alone is a poor selection rule if the supplier cannot deliver the crop your business needs.
Compare candidate regions on land-use risk, supplier concentration, local rights and tenure, the availability of baseline data, and exposure to drought, erosion, or forest conversion. Check the relevant legal requirements separately. A nature project does not satisfy a due-diligence obligation merely because it has a carbon method attached.
Consider a coffee buyer sourcing from two districts. In the first, producer-group records identify the farms, while recent dry seasons have increased rejected green coffee lots. In the second, deliveries pass through several intermediaries and farm origins are unknown. Pilot shade management in the first district, with local agronomic advice and quality checks built into the plan. The buyer can trace purchases there and test the intervention against a defined sourcing problem.
Use a short decision memo to record why the selected corridor beats the alternatives, what remains uncertain, and what would stop the pilot. That memo is the first control against a project drifting toward whatever happens to photograph well.
Step 3: Design the supplier engagement and commercial model
The intervention needs an owner on each side of the contract. Decide who supplies planting material or training, who maintains the practice, who bears the cost if a harvest disappoints, and how long the buyer expects to purchase from participating suppliers. Where smallholders participate, budget cash flow and technical support for practices that offer a later return.
Put these terms in a supplier agreement or pilot addendum. It should cover eligible farms and volumes, consent to data collection, access for monitoring, any land or carbon rights that matter, benefit sharing, and what happens if the purchasing relationship ends. Ask local counsel and producer representatives to review the arrangement. The Accountability Framework is a useful reference for supply-chain work involving forests, ecosystems, and human rights.[3]
Avoid assigning an automatic carbon benefit to the buyer. The contract should say which party has the right to report each outcome, how overlapping claims will be checked, and how any issued credits will be handled. A reduction reported in a buyer’s inventory cannot simply be sold for someone else’s offset claim without an accounting review. SBTi FLAG guidance excludes purchased credits used as offsets from near-term FLAG target achievement.[2]
Set commercial measures beside environmental ones: delivered volume, rejection rate, supplier retention, and procurement cost. They tell you whether the program works as a supply-chain investment, even if carbon accounting takes longer to resolve.
Step 4: Build monitoring, reporting, and verification before rollout
Agree on the baseline and data flow before paying for a full rollout. Identify the land units or sourcing regions in scope, the practices that change, the records suppliers already keep, and the additional measurements the program requires. Decide which data can come from field visits, transaction records, or remote sensing, and who checks each source.
For carbon, separate three questions. Did the practice happen? Did emissions or removals change under an applicable method? Can the buyer attribute a defensible share to its purchased goods without double counting? The GHG Protocol’s 2026 guidance includes dedicated chapters on spatial boundaries, data and methods, evaluating actions, credited outcomes, and assurance.[1] These are distinct jobs. A photograph of a planted tree answers only part of the first.
CCC’s MRV and Additionality article explains the separate evidence questions a project reviewer will ask.
Create an evidence file for every reporting period: dated supplier and farm records, purchase volumes, methods and emission factors, uncertainty, quality checks, and changes from the baseline. Specify who can challenge the data and how corrections are recorded. If a project also seeks credit certification, keep project accounting and corporate inventory accounting separate. The GHG Protocol says its land standard focuses on entity-level inventories and does not set the rules for credit certification.[4]
Start with the minimum viable measurement design that can survive review. Add complexity when the pilot tells you which data actually changes a decision.
Step 5: Decide what can be reported and claimed
Insetting program design needs reporting rules before the marketing copy. Procurement, sustainability, finance, and legal should agree on four distinct outputs: operational performance; observed land or nature outcomes; inventory effects, if the accounting criteria are met; and any separately issued credits. One dashboard can display them, but they should not share a single unqualified headline.
SBTi FLAG guidance allows certain land-based removals within a company’s operations or supply chain to contribute to FLAG pathways, subject to criteria including permanence, traceability, data quality, and allocation. It does not allow purchased offsets to meet near-term FLAG targets.[2] Eligibility therefore depends on evidence and the applicable target rules, not on calling an activity “insetting.”
Draft a claims register. For each proposed sentence, record the period, boundary, data owner, calculation method, reviewer, and whether the result is measured, estimated, or still a goal. If the evidence supports only “we funded a pilot with 200 farms,” say that. Do not turn a funding fact into a verified emissions reduction.
What good looks like by year three
Treat year three as a review point, not a promised payback date. A mature pilot should have mapped participating supply volumes, a stable supplier agreement, a repeatable data collection process, and a comparison of commercial and environmental results against the baseline. It should also have a documented answer for outcomes that cannot be included in the buyer’s inventory.
Scale only where the pilot improves a sourcing decision and the evidence can follow the product. If neither condition holds, redesign the intervention or change the corridor. A disciplined program can conclude that a site is unsuitable. That is useful procurement intelligence.
Discuss your insetting program with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital designs nature-based supply chain investments around sourcing needs and measurable sustainability outcomes. Schedule a consultation with our carbon and sustainability experts to map your tier-one supplier network, FLAG exposure, and first pilot decision.
Sources
[1] GHG Protocol, Land Sector and Removals Standard, version 1.1, and companion Guidance, June 2026: https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-standard ; https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-guidance
[2] Science Based Targets initiative, Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, especially pp. 16–17, 37, and 41: https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/SBTiFLAGGuidance.pdf
[3] Accountability Framework initiative, Accountability Framework and guidance for companies: https://accountability-framework.org/
[4] GHG Protocol, Frequently Asked Questions: Land Sector and Removals Standard, questions 10 and 18: https://ghgprotocol.org/blog/frequently-asked-questions-land-sector-and-removals-lsr-standard
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
